Roseanne/The Conners

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#76 Post by Big Ben » Wed May 30, 2018 1:22 pm

I don't know guys. I let out a good uncomfortable laugh at my local Best Buy over the weekend because they still had The Cosby Show DVDs for sale. Clearly the staff didn't give a shit. Not everything is being wiped.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#77 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 30, 2018 1:27 pm

Luke M wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 1:19 pm
In the future, they’ll wipe our memories so that the product appears to never have existed.
We have always been at war with Lanford, Illinois

User avatar
soundchaser
No longer chasing skirts
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: Roseanne

#78 Post by soundchaser » Wed May 30, 2018 1:48 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 1:22 pm
I don't know guys. I let out a good uncomfortable laugh at my local Best Buy over the weekend because they still had The Cosby Show DVDs for sale. Clearly the staff didn't give a shit. Not everything is being wiped.
I work in a public library - these still circulate regularly.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: Roseanne

#79 Post by Zot! » Wed May 30, 2018 2:59 pm

They may however wind up on the Song of the South shit-list, and access will be restricted. I have to give credit to my public library to go as far as offering a bootleg burned copy of that. Censorship is a trend emboldening stupidity and ignorance, not the opposite...even considering, or perhaps in spite of modern tendencies. All anybody wants to do is talk shit on twitter, who has time for Mein Kampf?

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#80 Post by connor » Wed May 30, 2018 3:22 pm

The weird thing about social media is that it's made us all more tolerant of different lifestyles. And that's good. But we're more punitive than ever when it comes to policing and punishing transgressions. And social media has just extended the scope of it all. Just look at Justine Sacco.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#81 Post by Big Ben » Wed May 30, 2018 4:00 pm

This was a free market decision and as such ABC has every right to wash it's hands of her as do all the networks showing the original seasons in syndication. At any point a network could make a bid for the show and choose to air it. They have chosen to do the opposite and wipe her off the face of the Earth. That isn't the same as censorship which would be government mandated. And let's not kid ourselves, the right could absolutely bank roll their own channel with all the sitcoms they wanted. They consciously choose not to do so.

I do however wonder how Tim Allen will fare on Fox with Last Man Standing now that the likely cause of his shows revival has been canned.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#82 Post by knives » Wed May 30, 2018 4:03 pm

Presumably well as he's not insane.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#83 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 30, 2018 4:06 pm

Tim Allen will do fine, he's barely on Twitter

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Roseanne

#84 Post by movielocke » Wed May 30, 2018 4:06 pm

Werewolf by Night wrote:
I do feel sorry for all the otherwise decent people she just put out of work with her idiotic tweeting.
I’d watch “the Connors” if the next season opened with them coming home from her funeral and saying “I can’t believe she’s gone!” Killed off off season ala two and a half men.

A show centered around Darlene, her aunt and her dad would be really strong I think.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Roseanne

#85 Post by Lost Highway » Wed May 30, 2018 4:13 pm

I don’t think this would work without her. Roseanne is the character who supplied the friction which fuelled the comedy. All the other characters were more low key and her sparring partners. They would have no one to spar with.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Roseanne

#86 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed May 30, 2018 4:19 pm

Maybe John Goodman's rebound after the funeral could be Susan Sarandon and we could all bet on when that iteration would implode.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Roseanne

#87 Post by Lost Highway » Wed May 30, 2018 4:20 pm

I really think you should pitch that ! :D

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Roseanne

#88 Post by aox » Wed May 30, 2018 4:23 pm

From the NYTimes:
The real story here is not that Roseanne got fired because she tweeted some stupid, racially charged, garbage (she would not have been the only one to tweet that sort of stuff and keep her job) nor that ABC “did the right thing”. The real story is that ABC/Disney successfully tapped the African American market ($1.3B revenue for Black Panther, and spin offs coming fast) and they don’t want to lose it. This was a cold, hard, business decision based on the potential revenue impact prior to the block buster season. The last thing ABC/Disney wanted was to face a politically / racially motivated boycott that would have had impact all year long and might have impacted their just found African American fan base. Very smart. They cut off the problem at the knees, shutting down any potential ramifications that might have impacted reputation or revenue; leaving Roseanne holding the bag. Make no mistake, this wasn’t about doing the right thing, this was about money. Wherever the African American community can focus their purchasing power, and threaten to leave when necessary, they can exert real influence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/opin ... ght-region

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Roseanne

#89 Post by PfR73 » Wed May 30, 2018 4:32 pm

movielocke wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:06 pm
I’d watch “the Connors” if the next season opened with them coming home from her funeral and saying “I can’t believe she’s gone!” Killed off off season ala two and a half men.
Image

User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: Roseanne

#90 Post by HJackson » Wed May 30, 2018 4:39 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:00 pm
That isn't the same as censorship which would be government mandated.
Government-mandated censorship is indeed the most insidious form of censorship, but it's not the only form. I'm not sure we're at "censorship" stage yet, but if ABC were indeed to wipe this show from the face of the earth and stop people from viewing it by any available means then obviously they are supressing the content.

TV networks of course have the right not to air anything they don't want to air - and given time restraints, they have to discriminate a great deal in what they do broadcast - but that doesn't change the fact that it's a silly knee-jerk reaction to pull a well-loved decades-old sitcom from reruns because its star said something moronic on Twitter. What's the thinking behind it - that the show will somehow influence others to be racist? That people will associate the content provider with racism for continuing to broadcast it?
Big Ben wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:00 pm
I do however wonder how Tim Allen will fare on Fox with Last Man Standing now that the likely cause of his shows revival has been canned.
I'm not sure how you think this incident will impact Allen's show at all. It was picked up because it did good numbers in the past and Fox was emboldened by Roseanne's success. The fact that Roseanne fucked her show up on Twitter doesn't mean that the audience no longer exists.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#91 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed May 30, 2018 4:49 pm

This thread is cursed.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#92 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 30, 2018 4:51 pm

I imagine Last Man Standing will get great ratings. I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives rallied behind its return. And I'm all for there being a right wing series for audiences to enjoy, just as I am for movies. If people want to see it, and it's not doing harm, so what?

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#93 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed May 30, 2018 5:05 pm

Rather than martyring her, conservative pundits are gently throwing her under the bus, while Trump's response was just to make it about himself (again).

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Roseanne

#94 Post by Brian C » Wed May 30, 2018 5:27 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:00 pm
This was a free market decision and as such ABC has every right to wash it's hands of her as do all the networks showing the original seasons in syndication. At any point a network could make a bid for the show and choose to air it. They have chosen to do the opposite and wipe her off the face of the Earth. That isn't the same as censorship which would be government mandated.
I don't mean this to be combative, but I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't understand the distinction between government censorship and ABC's decision to pull the show. And I also very much doubt that there's much of anyone anywhere who would argue that ABC doesn't have the right (legal or otherwise) to pull the show. It's just that some of us disagree with it, that's all. I'm not making a legal argument and I don't think anyone else is either.

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#95 Post by connor » Wed May 30, 2018 5:30 pm

aox wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:23 pm
From the NYTimes:
The real story here is not that Roseanne got fired because she tweeted some stupid, racially charged, garbage (she would not have been the only one to tweet that sort of stuff and keep her job) nor that ABC “did the right thing”. The real story is that ABC/Disney successfully tapped the African American market ($1.3B revenue for Black Panther, and spin offs coming fast) and they don’t want to lose it. This was a cold, hard, business decision based on the potential revenue impact prior to the block buster season. The last thing ABC/Disney wanted was to face a politically / racially motivated boycott that would have had impact all year long and might have impacted their just found African American fan base. Very smart. They cut off the problem at the knees, shutting down any potential ramifications that might have impacted reputation or revenue; leaving Roseanne holding the bag. Make no mistake, this wasn’t about doing the right thing, this was about money. Wherever the African American community can focus their purchasing power, and threaten to leave when necessary, they can exert real influence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/opin ... ght-region
The fact that Roxane Gay thinks this happened because of Black Panther's success is...curious.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#96 Post by Big Ben » Wed May 30, 2018 5:44 pm

Brian C wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 5:27 pm
Big Ben wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:00 pm
This was a free market decision and as such ABC has every right to wash it's hands of her as do all the networks showing the original seasons in syndication. At any point a network could make a bid for the show and choose to air it. They have chosen to do the opposite and wipe her off the face of the Earth. That isn't the same as censorship which would be government mandated.
I don't mean this to be combative, but I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't understand the distinction between government censorship and ABC's decision to pull the show. And I also very much doubt that there's much of anyone anywhere who would argue that ABC doesn't have the right (legal or otherwise) to pull the show. It's just that some of us disagree with it, that's all. I'm not making a legal argument and I don't think anyone else is either.
I know but people have a tendency to turn this conversations that way. I mean more than one Twitter user feared she was going to be in a gulag next and that Stalin was back. People just...you know.

On another note Jimmy Kimmell implied on Twitter that she may not be all there mentally and was hoping she would seek help. He's certainly in a position to know more than any of us. I hope she can get help.


User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Roseanne

#98 Post by hearthesilence » Wed May 30, 2018 6:55 pm

Problem solved.
PfR73 wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:32 pm
Image

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Roseanne

#99 Post by hearthesilence » Wed May 30, 2018 7:16 pm

Image

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#100 Post by Big Ben » Wed May 30, 2018 7:46 pm

This feels like a good solution. The rest of the cast doesn't deserve to be taken down by Roseanne's nonsense.

But yes I'd love to see Christopher Plummer do something related to this.

Post Reply